Sunday, October 25, 2015

The plane
was in its final descent and silently he thought, “thank God. “ Finally, some
peace. Then it happened. As the plane
taxied to the gate for the passengers to disembark, a flight attendant announced
over the plane’s intercom: “Well, folks, we have Marine Sergeant Michael James
on board. He is home from Iraq and I think we should give him a warm welcome
home.” With that, all the passengers stood and applauded.

To his
surprise, he felt his anger beginning to rise, even promising to turn into
rage. Maybe it was the Jack Daniels. Maybe he was just drained and wanted to
get away. To get away from all these people. He really didn’t know why but he
knew he should go and go quickly. As he stood and turned toward the passengers,
without really seeing any one of them, he could not stop himself from saying:

“What are
you applauding for?” There was silence, a stillness that comes from shock. “I
mean it: What are you applauding for?” More silence. He couldn’t stand it.

“I have
come home to bury my best buddy whose casket is in the belly of this plane. Are
you applauding for him? Well, he is dead and he cannot hear you.” More silence.

“Are you applauding
me? For what? For the killing I had to do? For the women, children, and old men
I had to kill? It happened you know. It had to happen. I had no choice. “ More
silence and a little something else beginning to develop among the passengers.
Annoyance? Anger? Was he raining on their parade?

“If you
applauding me, then I must say you are surer of what I did than I am. I don’t applaud
what I did there and wished every day I was there that I was somewhere else,
almost anywhere else doing almost anything else.” More silence and even some outward
signs of unrest. It was becoming awkward. How could they understand? He had to
get away. But still he said:

“You know,
you should be crying. You should be crying for my buddy and his family. You
should be crying for me, a Marine who killed the innocent. You should be crying
for those who were innocent but are now dead or maimed. But most of all you
should be crying for yourselves and your country. Because, well,” he said,
pausing and knowing they could not understand. “Just because.”

And with
that Marine Sergeant Michael James left the plane to seek the peace he hungered
for more than anything else.

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

Having
thought for some time that many of the most interesting items of what is
labeled “political philosophy” are concerned with the phenomenon of
imperialism, and having known Dr. Nichols both personally and through her
always intriguing work, I was quite glad to see her book, Thucydides and the Pursuit of Freedom because I knew it would deal
with imperialism, Athenian and otherwise. I was not at all disappointed as the
book is written in an accessible way, for the most part, and in a way that
reflects what has made Professor Nichols an excellent teacher.

However, I
do wonder at Nichols’ take on imperialism as she sees it presented in
Thucydides’ history. Near the end of her book, the following summary appears:
“Thucydides’ evaluation of imperialism is as complex as his evaluation of
democracy. Athenian virtues, intelligence, and daring led to the city’s
imperialism, and imperialism in turn encouraged the exercise of those virtues
by providing opportunities for ruling others, for deliberation and planning,
and for actions taken freely rather than out of necessity.” [p. 183]

So, it
would seem that for Thucydides, imperialism is the result of, as well as leading
to the cultivation of virtue, intelligence, and daring. Hence, those cities,
like Athens, that do embrace imperialism should attribute that embrace,
undertaken freely, to their virtue, intelligence, and daring, even while
enjoying the “opportunities for ruling others,” no doubt with the approval and
gratitude of those “others.”

But yet there is more and this more
frees one to question whether imperialism, of any kind, is the result of or
cultivates virtue or intelligence. Nichols continues:

“Thucydides nevertheless shows that
Athens frequently failed to exercise those virtues, as in granting power to
Cleon, and in its action against Melos. His reservations against Athenian
imperialism appear in his portrayal of such failures [while his] description of
the Sicilian expedition leads us to question the extent to which a moderate and
balanced foreign policy such as he attributes to Pericles can be maintained
over time. The excesses of Athens during the time of Alcibiades . . . suggest
that even a city as resourceful as Athens could not maintain the freedom and
restraint necessary to sustain its way of life for long.” [Ibid]

So, it
would appear that Athens, at least once Pericles is gone, “failed” at its
imperialistic endeavors, granting power to those apparently unfit to wield it,
slaughtering those who refused to bow to its demands, and undertaking
“expeditions” apparently doomed from the start. An imperialism well conducted
is one thing, but an imperialism badly conducted is another thing altogether.

But what if it is imperialism
itself that constitutes or accounts for “the excesses of Athens?” That is, what
if those “failures” Nichols mentions were actually reflections of what the Athenian
imperialism required? That is, imperialistic politics, Athenian or otherwise, requires
actions like that against Melos, the invasion of Sicily, and the granting of
power to those like Cleon or Alcibiades, to say nothing of the rather puffed up
and delusional Pericles. In other words, given the multiple examples of
inhuman, unjust, and tyrannical actions provided by Thucydides, it seems useful
to wonder if imperialism, Athenian or otherwise, has anything to do with
virtue, intellect, or justice. Imperialism could be just a perverse kind of
politics. Seductive or appealing to the strongest of human passions, to be
sure; but like other such phenomena, still perverse.

Perhaps Pericles’ imperialistic
policies were, as Nichols says, “moderate or balanced,” but that does not mean
that they were humane, just, or non-tyrannical. Moderate or balanced
inhumanity, injustice, or tyranny is better than immoderate or unbalanced
inhumanity, injustice, or tyranny. But even so, imperialism, even in its Periclean
manifestation, is still inhuman, unjust, and tyrannical. For how else would one
describe a politics that requires human beings, especially parents, to lose
themselves in the love of their city to the extent that the death of their
offspring in war was treated as something to be proud of, not something to be
lamented? And it would seem that if imperialism appears this way in Athens, that
city which was “the best of cities” according to Thucydides, characterized as
it was by beauty, intelligence, and deliberation, then it is fair to say that
imperialism is always, in all times and places, despicable.

None of this need be taken to mean
that Nichols’ interpretation of Thucydides is wrong. But it should be taken to
mean that if her interpretation of Thucydides is correct, then we may wonder
about the worth of taking our bearings from Thucydides and his understanding of
political life.

Sunday, October 4, 2015

The other
day, the NY Times ran an article that made it seem that Obama and Jeb Bush had
significant differences regarding guns and the mass shootings that have taken
place. Obama called for more gun control while Bush said, “Stuff happens,”
foregoing the need for more gun control. So, yes, they do have their
differences.

However,
these differences mask the way that Obama and Bush agree, in that both speak in
a way that makes these events seem like aberrations. According to Obama, “we”
or the government have to do something or something more about them. This
implies, as calls for government actions often imply, that the phenomenon to be
addressed, such as drug use or crime, is not endemic to our society. These
shooters are not “us;” they are “apart” from “us,” perhaps even “foreign” to
“us.” “We” don’t have to change; “we” just need the government to control
“them.” It is a comfortable way of thinking.

And Bush, when he says that “stuff
happens,” implies that these events occur out of the blue, as it were, that
there is no connection between this “stuff” and who “we” are or what American
has become. These events are accidents or
aberrations, as are the perpetrators of them. There is then not only no need to
press for more gun control; there is also no reason to think about ourselves or
our society in relation to these shootings. Clean up the blood, bring in some
counselors, bury the dead, heal the wounded, punish the guilty and move on.

So for both Obama and Bush, these
shootings have very little to do with our society, with how we are in the
world. And, of course, this is delusional. And it is especially delusional in a
society that turns its warriors into heroes but “disses” its teachers.